Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

Click here to add a new enforcement request
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
See also: Logged AE sanctions

Important information

Shortcuts

Please use this page only to:

request administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator,
request contentious topic restrictions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic,
request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or
appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators.

For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard.

Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.

To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}.

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following:

All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction.

The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may:

ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email.

Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template.

A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted.

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies:

The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change,^[a] or is no longer an administrator;^[b] or
The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and:
- the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or
- the restriction was an indefinite block.

A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction:

a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE,
a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN,
a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA.

Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped.

Standard of review
On community review

Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or
the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption.

On Arbitration Committee review

Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or
compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action.

^ The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.
^ This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment at the amendment requests page ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org).

Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.

While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.

Information for administrators processing requests

Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give.

A couple of reminders:

Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request.
When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X".
Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Wikipedia and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Wikipedia policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it.
More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated.

Closing a thread:

Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. A bot should archive it in 7 days.
Please consider referring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct.
You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages.
Please log sanctions in the Arbitration enforcement log.

Thanks again for helping. If you have any questions, please post on the talk page.

Arbitration enforcement archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40
41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54	55	56	57	58	59	60
61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72	73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80
81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90	91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100
101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108	109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120
121	122	123	124	125	126	127	128	129	130	131	132	133	134	135	136	137	138	139	140
141	142	143	144	145	146	147	148	149	150	151	152	153	154	155	156	157	158	159	160
161	162	163	164	165	166	167	168	169	170	171	172	173	174	175	176	177	178	179	180
181	182	183	184	185	186	187	188	189	190	191	192	193	194	195	196	197	198	199	200
201	202	203	204	205	206	207	208	209	210	211	212	213	214	215	216	217	218	219	220
221	222	223	224	225	226	227	228	229	230	231	232	233	234	235	236	237	238	239	240
241	242	243	244	245	246	247	248	249	250	251	252	253	254	255	256	257	258	259	260
261	262	263	264	265	266	267	268	269	270	271	272	273	274	275	276	277	278	279	280
281	282	283	284	285	286	287	288	289	290	291	292	293	294	295	296	297	298	299	300
301	302	303	304	305	306	307	308	309	310	311	312	313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320
321	322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331	332

Viriditas

No action taken.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request concerning Viriditas

User requesting enforcement: Sailsbystars (talk • contribs • email) 12:48, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Viriditas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change#Climate change: discretionary sanctions

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

[1][2] Violation of 1RR on Climatic Research Unit email controversy, which now falls under the discretionary sanctions regime.

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

Not applicable

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): Warning

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: Violation of 1rr restriction on Climatic Research Unit email controversy while reverting what is likely a Scibaby sock (but not yet proven). Pretty marginal violation if at all, but I'll leave that for another set of eyes to decide. I have simultaneously filed an SPI request at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Scibaby.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [3]

Discussion concerning Viriditas

Statement by Viriditas

Comments by others about the request concerning Viriditas

If it's Scibaby, aren't reverts of banned users exempt? Ravensfire (talk) 15:12, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. However, I think there is a question of whether one should be wholly exempt from 1RR when reverting an editor that has not yet been confirmed as a banned user (in fact, the purported sock puppet at the time of this writing is still not even duck blocked) and wanted some more experienced eyes to examine this. Pretty much any new editor to the CC articles is presumed to be a sock by default, whereas I am suggesting it might be helpful to confirm that fact before presuming one has the right to revert their edits. Sailsbystars (talk • contribs • email) 15:31, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We used to have a section at the CC probation board where editors could list their suspicions. All editors were then free to revert the suspected sock edits. I found that useful - it requires explicit documentation, without going through the hassle of filing a separate SPI for each suspected sock. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:36, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to the long term abuse page on scibaby, xe can also be reported to WP:AIV (which usually has lightning fast responses). I'm not sure anyone does that though..... Sailsbystars (talk • contribs • email) 15:42, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think Ravensfire is correct here. We also neeed to keep in mind that Scibaby is also watching this page and will exploit the fact that he can get people blocked. Now, we can avoid violating 1RR but that would require restarting the climate change task force page (which was paralized due to disputes in the CC area). One can simply revert once and then post a notification of the likely Scibaby edit on that task force page. Count Iblis (talk) 15:26, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One can, if one is aware of the 1RR violation. In this case, the edits in question are 22or so hours apart, so this may be a simple oversight (even if it is not, the general point stands). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:36, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to get a couple of CU's to volunteer to handle this major sock distrupter? I think if a couple would volunteer to monitor or be pinged to know that there is a questionable editor possibly socking that it would make it take less time than it does filing a regular SPI case. Sometimes cases get backlogged for quite sometime and a lot of damage can occur during that delay to articles/editors (if blocking is encouraged to editors). I for one truely believe in reverting banned/blocked editors but some editors are insistent like this one is. I don't think anymore attentions to a sock should be given than is possibly necessary. There has to be some kind of a rational system set up to remove sock edits without harm to the editors doing the reverting. I've always thought that reverting a sock puppet is the best way to do it. With enough contact with a sock, you can get to know that editors writing and have a good feel for when it's the sock. As the case did show, socks were being identified with a lower count of mistakes which seems to show that the long term editors that are used to this sock have gotten pretty good at seeing a sock of theirs. Let's not go for damaging the editor(s) reverting disruptions over a socks which would be absolutely the wrong signal to send. As Count Iblis says you can be sure that this banned user is watching this and if it is found to have the editor reverting him/her is to be blocked than a lot of damage to either the article or a lot of editors can occur which is not for the good of the project. Thanks,--CrohnieGal^Talk 16:01, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are two points emerging here. The first is that there is lack of clarity over "vandalism" when it comes to spotting Scibaby, and as such Viriditas is due a bit of leniency. The second one is that some editors feel that experience with Scibaby is a license to ignore process with impunity, so long as "you know" it's a sock. The first seems fair enough, but the second is not acceptable. There has to be a process of some kind whereby suspected Scibaby sockpuppets are examined properly. The last thing that any controversial area needs is introduction of a principle of ignoring all process. It opens up both opportunities for disruption, and grounds for legitimate complaints of bias in Wikipedia. In a topic like this there are enough people involved that a single editor should not need to contravene 1RR. Mention Scibaby in the first revert, and other editors will join in until the SPI can be completed. Let's not have the tail wasg the dog.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 16:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If a productive contributor is blocked under 1RR for reverting the latest in a prolific series of socks, that, my friend, is the tail wagging the dog. The 1RR, and all other discretionary sanctions, exist to make it easier for productive contributors to edit these articles. They aren't intended to handicap the small number of editors who still dare to handle Scibaby socks. Rules don't exist for their own sake; they exist to facilitate constructive contributions.
I think you're being (pardonably) naive when you suggest that other editors will jump in to revert Scibaby and make 1RR violations unnecessary. That is actually what has happened in the past. And it was used against those editors, as evidence of "tag-teaming" and "drive-by reverting". At this point, I don't understand why anyone would risk reverting even an obvious Scibaby sock, because one way or another it will come back to hurt you. I certainly won't bother. Let's say I'm right 95% of the time, which would be a superhuman success rate for sockpuppet identification. At most, it will take 20 sockpuppets (a month or two of output for Scibaby) before I make a mistake, at which point I can be tarred, feathered, and marginalized, if not sanctioned outright, for my trigger-happiness.
ArbCom has identified problems in the handling of Scibaby socks, but they've provided zero in the way of solutions to those problems, while making clear that people who are willing to deal with them can expect no support (and quite the opposite - they can expect to be thrown to the wolves with the help of unclear and misleading "checkuser estimates" of their false-positive rates). We have no checkuser help on this, as far as I can tell - at least none that even remotely keeps pace with the creation of socks. MastCell ^Talk 16:37, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Arbcom was quite clear that too many false alarms have been raised about Scibaby in the first place. Reverting can wait on innocuous edits until some sort of evidence is provided, else we shall have innumerable claims of Scibaby sightings rivalling Elvis. Collect (talk) 16:38, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom made it abundantly clear that the only acceptable false alarm rate for Scibaby socks is zero. Since there's a possibility that even checkuser evidence can be incorrect, editors and admins who revert or block Scibaby socks either are foolish, or they simply don't care what will happen to themselves.Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:47, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's no way I will revert anything on a CC article or talk page now, after seeing the way good people were thrown to the wolves recently for trying to maintain those pages. If that means that the socks now have them, then that is a problem for someone else to solve. --Nigelj (talk) 21:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Viriditas

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.

Checkuser has (not surprisingly) confirmed that the sock was in fact a sock, so this request is moot. We must absolutely not allow Scibaby to succeed in getting legitimate users risk sanctions for opposing him. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:54, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No violation. Reverting socks of banned users, confirmed or not, is exempt from 1RR and 3RR. Prolog (talk) 16:55, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First, reverting socks of banned users are exempt from xRR rules. Second, I will not block someone for reverting an account when there are reasonable grounds to believe that the account is a sock of a banned user, whether or not it turns out to be a sock. The endorsement for checkuser by an SPI clerk is sufficient for this purpose. T. Canens (talk) 22:59, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will comment as one of the arbitrators who participated in the Climate change decision. In my view, our expressed concern that there was too high a false-positive rate of Scibaby blocks should absolutely not be taken as a statement that there is not an ongoing problem in this area. Experienced checkusers and administrators without overt POVs in the climate change area are asked to continue monitoring this problem. Although arbitrators generally do not comment on enforcement requests, I specifically endorse the "no action" resolution of this one. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:00, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shuki

Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.

Request concerning Shuki

User requesting enforcement: Nableezy 20:38, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Shuki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated: Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

[4] Accuses me of lying

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

[5] Notified of case
[6] Warning by Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) specifically saying that if Shuki again says another editor is "lying" he or she may be made subject to sanctions

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): Block or topic ban

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: This episode is a result of Shuki adding a Hebrew source for contentious material on Psagot. I have asked, repeatedly, that Shuki abide by WP:NONENG and provide quotes from the source and translations of those quotes for the material they feel supports the dubious material they have inserted. Thus far, Shuki has declined to do so under the guise that it would be a copyright violation to comply with the request. Shuki accuses me of lying when I say they have refused to answer the repeated requests for the quotes and translations. There arent many "attacks" that I feel compelled to report, but a deliberate attack on my integrity is one that I do. Shuki has repeatedly accused of me of lying following requests that he or she cease doing so. I requested that Shuki modify their language, the charge was repeated.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: Notified

Discussion concerning Shuki

Statement by Shuki

It seems that Nableezy has a free pass at incivility and instigation and no problem with attacking me and my integrity by accusing me of refusing to comply with his requests. That recurring accusation of refusal is an unnecessary attack especially after what I have already said on the page here. I have not refused. I have stated on that talk page that I am in the process of contacting the author (not one of my friends if you might understand) and want to avoid copyvio for me and Wikipedia. Nableezy should AGF, stop the undesirable pressure, and refrain from being confrontational. I have told him that if he retracts his claim that I am refusing, than my reply would then be invalid. He seems want to avoid that. --Shuki (talk) 23:32, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That misses the point entirely. Do you accuse Nableezy of lying? A simple "Yes" or "No" will suffice. RolandR (talk) 23:42, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He is accusing Nableezy of misrepresenting him. Is this good conduct? No. Is Nableezy misrepresenting him good conduct? No as well. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:51, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Roland, please include links to where I refuse to comply with Nableezy's demands. Is he telling the truth that I have refused? If someone is not telling the truth, what is the word? --Shuki (talk) 23:56, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you accusing Nableezy of lying? RolandR (talk) 01:38, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shuki, the point is that you haven't provided the quotes, and thus haven't complied with a legitimate request. PhilKnight (talk) 00:25, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that I am repeating myself over and over saying that I am contacting the author. Only in WP does everyone want an answer now, in the real world, it does not work that way, do you understand? I have called the publishing house and supposed to hear from them early this week. Is that a refusal? Have you reprimanded Nableezy for not using less provocative and to be AGF? or are his harsh demands condoned. --Shuki (talk) 00:33, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just so we're talking about the same thing, you consider 'if you wish to use a Hebrew source you are required to provide original quotations and translations of the material you say supports what you put in an article. As you have refused to do so for almost 2 weeks now I will be removing the material sourced to this source unless you provide those quotations and translations.' is harsh and deserving of a reprimand? PhilKnight (talk) 00:42, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I felt provoked by a typical lack of AGF and acted with haste. I don't seem to understand what the difference is between someone telling a lie and calling them a liar, but perhaps this has something to do with where I grew up and the cultural differences that exist here. I guess that I should avoid labels and that some people might be offended. FWIW, in good faith, I'll self-refrain from editing the Psagot article and talk page for a week. --Shuki (talk) 23:15, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Shuki

After being asked by the filing party to refactor his "stop lying" remark, Shuki proceeded to use the phrase again[7]. I cannot help but wonder if he persisted in using that language in order to irritate Nableezy; and, if so, whether Shuki thinks that such approaches to interaction are at all helpful. AGK 20:59, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mbz1

I am not saying that what Shuki did was the right thing to do, but I believe such a small matter should not have been brought to AE. Sadly it happens a lot in I/P conflict related articles that editors are not exactly polite to each other. Here's a similar example from Nableezy's - his reaction on notification of AE opened against him:"You have demonstrated your lack of intellectual honesty". I am well aware of WP:NOTTHEM, and I brought the above example only to show that not every comment should be brought up to AE. I believe this AE should be closed with no action taken in order not to encourage such insignificant reports as this one is. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:44, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Jaakobou

I tend to agree that if someone calls another editor a liar it in the midst of a content discussion it is a bad contribution to the community. On the other hand of the coin Nableezy has done just that on the Psagot page and seems to be only interested in Israeli localities in order to add the term 'illegal' or 'colony' to them. Nableezy has been banned 2+2 months (total of 4) in the past year for the same issue and he's still not letting it go. To be honest, his method of participation on such topics is just as provocative as his demands that others translate whole pages for him or his assertions that we have to supply secondary sources which say explicitly that his non-reliable sources are non-reliable even when their material is clearly fabricated upon a basic checkup. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:39, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Side comment: Nableezy's argument, to which Shuki responded says:
  - Shuki, if you wish to use a Hebrew source you are required to provide original quotations and translations of the material you say supports what you put in an article".
- This is simply not true. There is no obligation to translate whole pages just to support material -- that would be ridiculous. The policy is that when quotes are used the original quote should be attached, and that English sources are preferred when they are available. I can see where someone would ask Nableezy to back off since he's threatening to delete the content. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:29, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jaakabou, WP:NOTENG says 'When citing such a source without quoting it, the original and its translation should be provided if requested by other editors: this can be added to a footnote or the talk page', which is more or less what Nableezy said. PhilKnight (talk) 00:03, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The policy has changed, apparently to allow copyvios, since my last review (older version here). Full page translations aside, Nableezy's repeated assertions that he can't trust my word (basically calling me a liar) and repeated demands that I supply secondary sources that reject a fabrication by a marginal advocacy group are provocative and unreasonable. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 04:42, 14 November 2010 (UTC) +c 04:44, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by BorisG

I'd say accusation of lying isn't nice but on the backdrop of serial incivility by Nableezy, any sanction of Shuki by more than a few hours would be strongly one-sided. One example of Nableezy's behaviour is above where he calls Shuki's material dubious. OTOH, as far as I understand, quoting something is never a copyright violation, so I don't think Shuki needs to contact the author etc. But that's not really the issue here. - BorisG (talk) 04:16, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The material is "dubious" and calling it that is not uncivil. We even have a template for such material ({{dubious}}). It is highly extraordinary that the Israeli Supreme Court would say that a specific settlement does not violate international law. nableezy - 11:23, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: This sure seems like an allegation that the well established and proficient wikipedia editor who added this content (i.e. Shuki) was making things up rather than citing the source correctly. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:32, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by George

Independent of Nableezy's request, I also requested a translation of the same source, getting me involved in this discussion. I understand that Shuki is worried about violating copyright, but the correct thing to do here is to remove the content in question until a translation is provided for it, not wait for them to contact the author to get permission (which may never come, and which Nableezy probably interpreted as stonewalling).

Regarding Shuki's statement, I think Shuki misinterpreted Nableezy's comment as being more personal than it was intended. Nableezy said that Shuki had refused to provide a translation. Shuki took this to mean that Nableezy was accusing him of not trying. However, the meaning of the word is more nuanced, and I don't think Nableezy meant that Shuki was not trying, I think that Nableezy was just assessing the situation - in this case, refusing simply meant that Shuki had failed to provide a translation, which is true. Granted, saying that Nableezy was lying is a uncivil, but I wonder if Shuki might be swayed to apologize and strike the comment instead. And either editor could remove the content cited to the source in question, until Shuki is able to provide a translation for it. ← George^talk 10:32, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support both editors apologizing for inflaming the situation. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:33, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I don't think Nableezy did anything to inflame the situation. Shuki misinterpreting what Nableezy wrote isn't really Nableezy's fault. ← George^talk 18:26, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Shuki

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.

The initial warning by Sandstein was in June of this year, which is not exactly recently, but language such as "stop lying" is never a helpful way to interact with one's fellow editors. I would invite Shuki to provide some kind of explanation for his actions. If his explanation proves unsatisfactory, I would move to sanction Shuki by placing him, under the provisions of WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions, on civility parole whereby any instance of incivility would be met with blocks of escalating length (starting at 24h). Playing "civility police" is never fun, but I am sure being called a "liar" for trying to improve the encyclopedia is equally as unenjoyable. AGK 20:55, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per my comment in the above section (which relates to a diff that I did not notice until after making my first comment in this section), I am yet more inclined towards sanctioning Shuki. AGK 21:00, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Accusations of lying, which can be viewed as ABF or NPA violations, twice in a row, the second after being spoken to about the first? I hesitate to endorse sanctions without hearing from the editor involved as a general rule, but this is really distressing. I concur with AGK that the "civility police" role is often overused and counter productive; this does not however excuse such behavior, and that it was repeated leads me to lean strongly towards sanction, as well. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 21:57, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it's a violation, but I'd prefer something like a 1-week article + talk page ban, as opposed to civility parole. PhilKnight (talk) 22:46, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I like George's suggestion on how to handle the content issue, above, but that does not address the incivility issue. I have no strong views on what sanction to use regarding that; AGK, how do you feel about Phil's suggestions? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 11:55, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think Shuki's statement is enough, so I no longer feel that action is necessary. PhilKnight (talk) 01:47, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vecrumba

Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.

Request concerning Vecrumba

User requesting enforcement: Offliner (talk) 15:23, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Vecrumba (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated: *Wikipedia:EEML#Vecrumba_topic_banned: 18.1) Vecrumba (talk · contribs) is topic banned from articles about Eastern Europe, their associated talk pages, and any process discussion about same, widely construed, for one year. This topic ban is consecutive with any editing ban

Wikipedia:EEML#Editors_restricted: 11A) The editors sanctioned by name in this decision are prohibited from commenting on or unnecessarily interacting with Russavia (talk · contribs) on any page of Wikipedia, except for purposes of legitimate and necessary dispute resolution.

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

[8] Despite his indefinite ban on interacting with and commenting on Russavia, saved a comment by Russavia, probably in order to use it against Russavia later.
[9] Arrived in an EE-related process discussion to make accusations
[10] Followed User:Petri Krohn to WMC's talk page and attacked him. Vecrumba has already been reminded that ban covers his attacks on Petri Krohn: [11]
[12] Participates in a POV dispute at Communist terrorism. ArbCom has clearly stated that the ban covers Communist terrorism [13]
[14] Accused Petri Krohn of "ardent anti-Estonianism"
[15] Participates in a process discussion about a WP:EEML member and attacks Petri Krohn
[16] Attacks User:Ghirlandajo, and only retracts the comment after Ghirlandajo reminds Vecrumba of his topic ban [17]
[18] In another personal attack, after the mandatory notification about this thread, Vecrumba insults me with "Get a life".

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

[19] Warning by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs)

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): Block and extension of topic ban. Perhaps also a sanction forcing Vecrumba to seek admin approval on this noticeboard before participating in any ArbCom or dispute resolution actions not directly related to him, similar to what was issued here.

Addition: I ask that an interaction ban be placed on Vecrumba on interaction with me, especially noting that he should stop following my edit history. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 01:55, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: Vecrumba has already been blocked 3 times for his continuing violations of the topic ban (see block log). Offliner (talk) 15:23, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [20]

Discussion concerning Vecrumba

Statement by Vecrumba II

My apologies for an inadvertent save without completing my edit comment. Having considered what BorisG and Biophys have had to say, let's try this again. I invite Petri to similarly disengage and nullify our conflict here which was precipitated by Offliner's bad-faith accusations against myself which unfairly involved him.

Regarding Offliner's bad faithed and cynical attack designed only to foment conflict, not the first attempt at block shopping: prior being at Sandstein's talk, seeking sanctions because I was attempting to move forward from conflict (!):

[21] Despite his indefinite ban on interacting with and commenting on Russavia, saved a comment by Russavia, probably in order to use it against Russavia later. — If you must know, I hope to make a gallery of best denunciations when my topic ban expires; I was inspired by someone else's gallery of quotes. I have neither interacted nor commented.
[22] Arrived in an EE-related process discussion to make accusations — no, to set straight Offliner's blatant misrepresentation of a conversation I had with another editor with no comment regarding the proceeding itself
[23] Followed User:Petri Krohn to WMC's talk page and attacked him. Vecrumba has already been reminded that ban covers his attacks on Petri Krohn: [24] — no, I was merely tired of Petri's denouncments of EEML, read the entire section and look for EEML
[25] Participates in a POV dispute at Communist terrorism. ArbCom has clearly stated that the ban covers Communist terrorism [26] — Malaya is about as far away as you can get from the area of dispute, these were anti-Japanese who then turned anti-British, nothing to do with Soviet communism in any way. Quite frankly I didn't follow the proceedings once I made my statement there, and I also quote from ArbCom: "though Vecrumba's point that Communist highjinks != USSR is well taken"; the case was regarding what was a prior incarnation/title of the article; and as Communist terrorism doesn't exist at all other than a dab it's rather a silly point to contend I was active on content as was originally envisioned in any manner in scope to the decision.
[27] Accused Petri Krohn of "ardent anti-Estonianism" — I merely state facts and without hyperbole; when an editor (strenuously) maintains that Soviet occupation was invented as a myth following Estonia regaining her independence to justify Estonia's leaders turning Estonia into a fascist apartheid state, there's really no wiggle room to see that as a positive. Not to mention Petri calling myself and others an ethno-fascist gang; this is not a Baltic love-fest. I'd like to make the point that I have not stated Petri is not entitled to his opinion, if you read the entire thread misrepresented as an attack, you will see I am seeking to understand the basis for Petri's position.
[28] Participates in a process discussion about a WP:EEML member and attacks Petri Krohn — sorry, states the simple case regarding Petri
[29] Attacks User:Ghirlandajo, and only retracts the comment after Ghirlandajo reminds Vecrumba of his topic ban [30] — no, I extricated myself leaving his provocative re-litigation of the past behind and suggested moving on at his talk page. I would parenthetically add that when Ghirla was (subsequently, I had the page on my watch list in case of a response) rude regarding a request on his own user page, I had responded without having thought of the ban (oops!)—and so contacted the editor with the information they required off-Wiki. So, exactly who has WP's best interests at heart?
[31] In another personal attack, after the mandatory notification about this thread, Vecrumba insults me with "Get a life". — My advice stands. "Mandatory"? Rather ignores Offliner's choice to do this in the first place.

I regret Offliner chosing to involve Petri, who has nothing to do with matters here, knowing it would only escalate matters. Whatever this is, it has nothing to do with Petri. The last time we exchanged on our difficulties at my talk we left matters as cordially as could best be expected. I look forward to debating Petri on the sources once my topic ban expires. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 01:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum

I hope Petri takes advantage, my "renounce Offliner's actions and disengage" proposal is a limited time offer. Otherwise, as I've committed to NOT fuel the tempest in the teapot, I request specific direction from Arbcom on whether Petri's points or Offliner's points (in more detail) require response on my part.

That said, I do request ArbCom deal with Offliner's disruption here as evidenced from the very beginning of this sordid affair which starts not with me, but with Offliner block shopping against me (at the talk of an admin who he felt would be sympathetic to blocking me) because I participated in a conversation on putting conflict in the past. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 21:28, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Vecrumba

I regret I'm not going to give credence to Offliner's personal attack here by responding to it point by point as this is not Ofliner's first attempt at block shopping (prior being at Sandstein's talk, seeking sanctions because I was responding on moving forward from conflict (!), note Sandstein's terse and graceful self-extraction in not taking the bait).

Offliner quotes my talk page as an example of battleground mentality and responding that it's nothing of the kind is a violation of my ban? I made sure to limit my response only to what Offliner blatantly misrepresented having to do with my interaction with another editor, nothing else.

With regard to Malaya, whose "communists" were largely re-aligned anti-Japanese now against the British, that has nothing to do with the area of the ban; indeed I commented to Paul Siebert that I will be glad to discuss the topic of "communist terrorism" more widely (which would include consideration of scholarship where it pertains to Soviet-related communism) when my ban expires. I don't think I could be more clear.

Lastly, regarding "attacking" Petri Krohn, his membership in SAFKA (self-outed on Wikipedia) speaks for itself. And my so-called attack here simply states the facts. It was only my wish to move on from past conflict that I did not act to have Petri permanently blocked for stalking me and knowingly falsely accusing me of outing him—after which he quickly covered up his self-outing at the diffs I had cited as best as he could with edit summaries indicating "verifiability" (!) concerns.

(Please also read the entire thread of my conversation with Petri which Offliner quotes out of context in his attempt to defame me.)

Perhaps I should have filed to have Petri blocked as not doing so is (my perception) only fueling others to attack me: that Offliner's evidence takes my factual statement that Petri stalked and falsely accused me and turns it into an attack by myself on Petri speaks for itself.

That I did not request enforcement against Petri rather demonstrates who is the editor more committed to moving on from past conflict. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 22:07, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I should mention my position regarding Petri (let sleeping dogs of false accusations lie) still stands as there's been no provocation on Petri's part since. I can't debate him upon my return from my topic ban if he's unavailable, now can I? PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 22:25, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since Petri has requested an interaction ban (didn't notice), I suppose I'll have to retract the above as Petri appears to be supporting Offliner's contentions here. Hmm... stalk me (accusing me of acting in bad faith while seeking avenues to put conflict in the past), falsely accuse me, and then ask for an interaction ban? Can you say "victim blaming"? And that certainly gives the lie to Petri's purported (my emphasis) "absolutely no interest" regarding my activities. I too regret the turn things have taken here, Petri did not have to escalate by making himself out to be a victim and asking for sanctions against me. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 22:37, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Petri, I suggest you consider disengaging here. If you have issues with anyone, it is with Offliner for bringing up my statement of fact regarding your conduct as an attack upon your person. You will note I still have not filed any enforcement request in connection with your block-shopping based on blatantly false lies, but my kindness has limits if your response to this all is to join in escalating conflict. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 23:15, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Regarding Ghirla, I extricated myself leaving his provocative re-litigation of the past behind and suggested moving on at his talk page. I would parenthetically add that when Ghirla was (subsequently, I had the page on my watch list in case of a response) dismissive of a request on his own user page, I had responded without having thought of the ban (oops!)—and so contacted the editor with the information they required off-Wiki. So, exactly who has WP's best interests at heart? PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 00:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@BorisG: I would point out that I'm only responding and of the editors choosing to accuse me here (Offliner and Petri Krohn) I'm the only one who has made any attempts to move on from the past and been attacked by both of them for it. (See Sandstein's and Shell Kinney's talk history.) Only on WP is seeking an olive branch ignored or attacked as being a sign of weakness. And you will also note I've asked this be nipped in the bud so as not to escalate or encourage more of these in the future. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 00:50, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Formal response to Petri

(replacing prior response)

Unfortunately Petri has assembled such a quagmire of charges against me—pretty much all completely off topic—that I need to make quite a number points to silence this charade.

To the charge of OUTING: Petri has chosen to continue pretending he is some other Petri, discussed below

To the charge of HARRASSMENT by continuing attempts to "OUT" Petri: If he'd stop with his charade, blatant lies, and false accusations there would be no need for further comment

To the charge of STALKING: Seeing what editors are doing and if it is something interesting is not stalking. Even the editor whom I must not name has stated they "follow edits." Making positive contributions in areas of my own interest is not a crime the last I checked.

I am a telecommunications (among numerous Information Technology disciplines) professional
I have been visiting the East-West bookstore here in New York going back now on nearly 40 years

So if I contributed somewhere positively, do we care how I got there? Unfortunately, rather than putting conflict in the past, EEML is dredged up like some stench, as here by Petri, at every turn at places totally unrelated, even at the still fairly recent race and intelligence arbitration (Mathsci); earlier by Viriditas (I should note Viriditas and I have long since "made up" and are on good terms—proving reconciliation is possible when editors practice good faith instead of giving it lip service).

What Petri cites is neither disruption nor stalking. If it were, Ludwigs2 would have reported long ago for my continual "stalking" him at the Humanities desk. As for the Paul Siebert affair, his talk has long been on my watchlist, Petri wasn't even involved in the conversation which took place there for the diff he cites. More grasping at any straw to accuse me.

What is a disruption is Petri's egregious conduct at Shell Kinney's talk which I would have gladly let pass with only mention, but based on Petri's escalation here I am forced to review it in detail lest Petri's mud-slinging stick:

I appear at Kinney's at Sandstein's suggestion
oops, not at the end of the talk page
Petri appears and accuses me of preparing for a new battleground (following me from Sandstein's)
- As for Petri's "offer" to bury the hatchet, see conversation here, his "offer" that if I'm really interested in moving on, I advocate full clemency for Petri for his past conduct in a quid pro quo; I'm sorry, trust is built and respect earned—not demanded (and there ARE editors on WP with whom I disagree strenuously at times but whom I nevertheless respect), and Petri is still free to look for the graph I mention, but I digress
my measured response to Petri's
Shell's suggestion
Petri's diatribe about his hurt feelings plus (typo fix)
- Petri did not (just!) hound me — a lie
- "voluntary topic ban on disputes in EE and related — a lie (check Petri's "de-POV" here)
- "but to the activities of a real life person who happens to share my username" — a lie (self-outed on Wikipedia), and as I have stated, my interest in Petri's WP activities stem from the content he creates and nothing else, and as for his "BOLD" actions, he's already been accused of using BOLD to excuse engaging in edit warring, but that and his attempts at adminesque behavior are a separate topic
- admission of following Russavia, not a crime on his part
- EEML accusations through innuendo, evidence? none
- "saving my butt", in a word, no
my response to Petri's ridiculousness and suggest he unequivocally state he's not "Petri" if he wishes to eliminate confusion plus tweak and add a sample of the type of "speculation" I mean
Petri removes my comment disproving his contention under the guise I violated my topic ban, sorry, he brought it up while attacking me
Petri removes my comment as an attempt at outing
Shell indicates she can police her own talk
Shell removes (potentially) inappropriate link
Shell offers Petri advice and admonishes me for my (Petri-alleged) outing attempt
I respond that Petri has in fact already outed himself on WP
I make the point that I'm attacked for seeking advice on moving on from conflict plus tweak and tweak
Shell strikes her admonition to me, it having been based on false accusations (after evidence provided), and admonishes Petri (clearly, based on Petri's diatribe here, having no effect)
my FYI to Shell that Petri is attempting to cover his tracks, note also edit summary

There is also my parallel conversation with Petri at my talk, see here.

As for what OTHER people say about SAFKA, about SAFKA's raging Internet feud with Kafkaz Center (SAFKA accusing the Finnish government of harboring terrorists; said terrorists allegedly making death threats in return; all fascinating reading in the Finnish press) there is no place for that here unless Petri's contention is to say:

here is Vecrumba, he is against me;
here is Kafkaz Center, et al., they are against SAFKA and Petri;
ergo Vecrumba is equally malevolent in every way (bringing up neo-Nazi charges et al.)

I am sorry, but I see no need to be the dumping ground/lightning rod for Petri's political woes and victimization mantra via guilt by association which stretches even Wikipedia standards for conflict.

Yes, I've stated Petri has an anti-Estonian POV. When someone (strenuously) maintains that Soviet occupation was invented as a myth following Estonia regaining her independence to justify Estonia's leaders turning Estonia into a fascist apartheid state, there's really no wiggle room to see that as a positive. Not to mention Petri calling myself and others an ethno-fascist gang—I regret having to remind Petri of that tawdry unpleasantry.

Lastly I regret that, contrary to Petri's compendium of false contentions, the only place Petri has been attempting to bury the hatchet is in my head based on his woe-is-me conspiracy theories portraying himself as a victim. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 16:15, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. If Petri's real life activities cause him concern, his self-outing, his activities, his associates, his not using his WP right to disappear and come back fresh (and maintaining his original ban was persecution for his political views, not a sanction for his disruption, et al.) are his choice. I've also been accused by paid propagandists on WP of murdering Transnistrian children when I stood in their way—by the vitriol of their attack having affected their paycheck, I suspect. I am not responsible for the choices others make, nor will I have others make themselves or others out to be victims at my hand when they suffer the consequences of their own conduct. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 16:30, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

End it now

I suggest closing this tawdry affair before it gets uglier. I have let provocations pass to this point, but my patience wanes. I had rather hoped that not appealing my topic ban and sitting it out for an entire year would lead to a reduction in conflict, giving all a chance to put the past behind us; clearly (being attacked here and being set upon for conversations elsewhere for how to put conflict in the past) it appears I am heading for grave disappointment: the personal attacks appear to be escalating the closer we get to the majority of the remaining EEML topic bans expiring. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 23:07, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So much for that. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 04:25, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And now Dojarca chimes in below, rather proves my point about my detractors (that would include Dojarca) escalating the conflict the closer we get to the majority of the remaining EEML topic bans expiring, doing all the block-shopping they can to try to extend the bans. (I should add, purely my perception as someone on Dojarca's receiving end in the past.) I should be flattered by the attention here; on the contrary, I'm quite sad that the passage of time has, for some, aged and refined animosity as if it were a fine wine. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 16:46, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm hurt, I was obviously left off the notice list advertising the fire sale on EEML-related enforcement requests. Perhaps ArbCom might consider my long-standing oft-repeated proposal: enforce at least a 6-month hiatus on any topic-area involved editors filing AN/I's or enforcement requests against each other (including on- and off-Wiki block shopping wherever someone thinks they'll get harshest sanctions) to force them to work things out at articles. Gun control works, arbitrators. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 03:38, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Petri Krohn

I have absolutely no interest in Vecrumba or his current activity on Wikipedia, However, given the precedent, I feel I have a responsibility to comment on process discussions where my name is mentioned.

I seldom edit in the topic areas of known interest to Vecrumba or others involved in the EEML arbitration case. Yet some former EE mailing list members have a strange fascination with my personality. This is is evident from the pattern of behavior shown; following my edits and engaging in disputes or discussions where I am involved – or just simply editing articles I have edited or linked to. (I will not name others, as this discussion is only about Vecrumba.)

I suspect this interest in me stems from my suspected real life activities – which, although possible important or interesting, are not notable. Because of the constant attempts at OUTING, this interest is becoming a form of HARASSment.

(I reserve the possibility to present more evidence.)

I ask that an interaction ban be placed on Vecrumba on interaction with me. This ban should cover following my edit history. On a personal level, I harbor no ill feelings against Vecrumba and am saddened that the problem behavior has forced me to make this request. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 22:28, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(The above comment was written before Vecrumba posted his initial statement, but only posted afterwards – after an edit conflict. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 01:34, 15 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Response to Vecrumba

It is interesting and indicative of the situation, that instead of responding to the accusations made by Offliner Vecrumba posts the above rant against me – and someone in real life he wants to associate with me. Note, that this happened before I ever took part in this discussion.

Vecrumba has again repeated his allegation, that I have stalked him. In the last half year I have once checked Vecrumba's edit history and reacted based on it. This was after I made him a proposal to end all past hostility, outlining what I expected him to do (a specific type of apology) I fully expected him to react positively to the proposal or at least give it a thorough consideration after discussing the issue with others involved. Checking for his response or reaction, I saw that he had posted a rant similar to the one above on the talk pages of two administrator. I was shocked to find that one of the talk pages had in fact turned into EEML rant central, with repeated accusations and innuendo against me and my supposed real life politics.

I do not need to comment on what on or off-wiki information may have led Vecrumba and Co to link me to SAFKA. Even if the connection was true, I have no obligation or desire to discuss or display my real life political opinions or affiliations on Wikipedia.

To those uninformed about the politics, let me enlighten you: Vecrumba is basically repeating the old accusation, that I am a member of a neo-Nazi organization engaged in Holocaust denial – or something equally bad – and should therefore be banned or restricted from editing Wikipedia. This time Vecrumba is not asking that me editing rights be restricted, but the request was first made by Margintg in 2008 on the same grounds.

You may also note the following: The internationally know propaganda organ (Kavkaz Center) of an Islamic terrorist organization (Caucasian Emirate) has repeatedly claimed that “SAFKA” is in fact a “murder squad” with a mission to murder human rights activist. This information has been widely redistributed on Al-Qaeda web sites. At the same time terrorist leader Doku Umarov is reported to have ordered that SAFKA members and their families be killed. I believe Vecrumba is fully aware of these aspects. Whether he knows or not, he should understand that linking my name to such organizations puts my life in danger. I have no desire to be linked to any of this. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 01:34, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some evidence

A look at Vecrumba's rather short recent edit history shows that a large part of his edits outside the Race topic are in response to my edits. I will leave out the cases already pointed out by Offliner

Communist Terrorism – Me: 17:14, 13 November 2010 (create redirect) Vecrumba: 19:24, 13 November 2010
Talk:Communist terrorism (disambiguation) – Me: 04:51, 10 November 2010, Vecrumba: 20:58, 10 November 2010
User talk:Paul Siebert – Me: 21:42, 1 November 2010, Vecrumba: 05:19, 10 November 2010
Talk:Asymmetric Digital Subscriber Line – Me: 16:00, 18 September 2010, Vecrumba: 18:02, 18 September 2010
Standard Tibetan – Me: 07:24, 16 October 2010, Vecrumba: 20:20, 16 October 2010

Not all of Vecrumba's WP:STALKing behavior is confrontational. The pattern however shows that a major part of Vecrumba's Wikipedia activity is monitoring my edits. This has to stop! -- Petri Krohn (talk) 02:58, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Vecrumba

Alas - not much here. As for "saving comments" - that is precisely what is permitted WRT dispute resolution. The bit about "arriving" at a discussion was after a link relating to Vecrumba was introduced by Offliner - once Offliner introduced Vecrumba as a topic, it was clearly proper for Vecrumba to appear, as Vecrumba noted. Mountains from moleholls really do not belong here, IMHO. Collect (talk) 18:03, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where exactly in my statement to the Biophys thread did I "introduce Vecrumba as a topic" as you say? The diff by Biophys is only tangentially relevant to Vecrumba, being a comment posted in a "BTW" sense. If one examines all the previous topic ban violations of Vecrumba, it becomes clear that Vecrumba often uses things like this as an excuse to get involved in where he should not. The diff is good example of the poster's battleground mentality, and the fact that it was posted on Vecrumba's talk page is irrelevant to the reason it was mentioned. Offliner (talk) 20:10, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One potential violation might be his discussion of a redirect page [32], but he talked about Malaya [33], which is obviously outside Eastern Europe. As about his comments on this noticeboard and elsewhere, he commented about users other than Russavia, which is not a violation of his bans.Biophys (talk) 19:20, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to an uninvolved editor that all of these guys have battleground mentality. This request is part of this battle. This needs to stop. - BorisG (talk) 00:38, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is becoming beyond ridiculous (on both sides). I think urgent action from experienced admins to calm this down is required. - BorisG (talk) 16:40, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@BorisG: Both sides? You're not being attacked with blatant lies. I'm still glad to close these unfortunate unpleasantries with no further action as a sign of good faith. The sooner this closes the better. If there are no more attacks here upon my person, I'll commit there will be no further responses by myself. Having dealt with Petri's diatribe, I was next planning to respond to Offliner point by point simply because mud sticks, but I will (gladly, I detest these proceedings) forgo that if we can put this out of our misery. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 17:04, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I clearly see that both sides have engaged in strong personal attacks. Attacks that would make the Israeli-Palestinan debate look like a friendly conversation if not romance:). - BorisG (talk) 17:11, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've only responded, not one thing I have stated regarding Petri is a "personal attack." That Offliner has chosen to portray my statements of fact (including Petri's nearly successful attempt to get me blocked) as such is part of his MO at these affairs. In particular, you will note I have filed no retaliatory enforcement action against Petri for his actions even though I am more than well within my rights. And if you follow the thread on my talk, you will see that (actually, on both our parts) matters were left off as cordially as they could be under the circumstances. Unfortunately, those circumstances have deteriorated, not of my doing. As an old Latvian saying says, taught to me by my mother (and this would be to your point), "When you stomp on shit it only spreads and stinks." Regrettably, a certain amount of stomping is sometimes necessary to bring the smell to attention. That said, I do fervently hope there will be no further stomping here and we can all go home, clothespins still attached to our collective noses. But not my call. Best regards, PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 17:37, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I see you've added some outside observations to more than one of these, I commend you for your interest in making WP a better place. Having also peeked into the conflict you mention (e.g., West Bank versus prior but still recent place names), the real value is not in observing that, "Gee, these two parties are attempting to smite each other mightily," it's in going back through the conflict, reading sources, and (on occasion) changing sometimes long-held beliefs when confronted with unbiased scholarship. (Even biased sources make for informative reading as long as you know what to look for.) Perhaps we can discuss relevant subject matter when my topic ban expires, I'd be interested in your perspective. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 17:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@BorisG, I trust you find my reformulation more appropriate, thanks for your observation, you are, after all, here as part of the solution. My apologies for getting defensive, it's simply from years of being assaulted and vilified—although no one has yet shown where I have been less than fair and accurate in representing reputable and reliable sources. Maybe that's the problem. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 01:42, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.P.S. And what is presented as "stalking" would, under circumstances of good faith, be taken as proof positive that editors can cooperate outside their area of conflict—and in fact has been suggested in the past for this very conflict. I just thought it was a bit silly to leave a fact tag when I knew the answer. (Generally I look upon fact tags as editors boosting their edit count without doing the work to answer the question, which also counts as only one edit.) Done, now. (!) PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 18:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peters, I think you and Petri fell victims of an artificially created battleground. Such requests do tremendous damage to the project. I can only imagine how you both feel. This is especially regretful since you and Petri are good content creators.Biophys (talk) 18:57, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sooner we forget this and get back to moving on, the better. I can't unilaterally help editors mired in past conflict—that Offliner's and Petri's prior block-shoppings were both in relation to my attempts to move forward from past conflict is evidence enough—evidence I am more than glad (and I would hope they are as well) to leave behind by having this closed. And to your point, agreed, if Offliner hadn't created fresh wounds, there would have been none of the subsequent unpleasantness between Petri and myself. If Petri agrees and indicates that he regrets Offliner citing my comments as an "attack" on him—an accusation against which I had to defend myself—I am more than glad to for Petri and myself to agree to (a) assume good faith first, and (b) if having difficulty in doing so that we contact each other on our respective talk pages to discuss constructively and stay away from enforcement requests, which are little more than a wormhole to a year ago. The answer is not a ban on interaction, rather, it's promoting positive interaction.

Once this is closed I expect I'll open a motion following up per earlier encouragement to have all personal copies of EEML-related evidence deleted, as the point appears to have been missed by some that the conflict is over. (I thought I had seen some in Petri's name space subsequent to the incident at Shell Kinney's talk, having been puzzled by his actions, but not there now, so that's a good sign at least.)PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 19:35, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to you for your advice as well. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 01:43, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Vecrumba

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.

Martintg

Martintg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is currently under topic ban following the WP:EEML case. [34]. Martintg is topic banned from articles about Eastern Europe, their associated talk pages, and any process discussion about same, widely construed, for one year. This ban is consecutive to any editing ban.

A recent arbitration enforcement request filled against Martintg [35] was closed without any action conditionally to the promise by Martintg to "voluntarily agree to absent yourself from any unblock review proceedings (or in ANI discussions or on any admin talk pages) where the person involved has recently edited any article or subject matter on your banned list.".[36]

Today Martintg broke his own promise by intervening into a USSR-related topic ban review request by Biophys, another EEML member [37] and violently attacking other users. Biophys recently participated in heated discussion in article Communist terrorism [38][39] which is in the scope of Martintg topic ban list which literally contradicts the mentioned promise by Martintg.

Ironically Martintg claims in this post that the arbitration enforcement request against him as "unsuccessful" apparently forgetting that he was pardoned only conditionally.

Note also that Martintg has been blocked October 3 this year for a week for violation of his topic ban.

That's why I suggest an increased block duration to make him clear that the topic ban violation and outright breaking his own promises is not tolerated. --Dojarca (talk) 09:40, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Martintg

I see no reason for any enforcement. Martintg's posting at WP:A/R/A is being presented to Arbcom directly. That is not an 'unblock review proceeding.' If Arbcom sees any impropriety in Martintg's comment there, they can take whatever action is necessary. EdJohnston (talk) 18:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sherif9282

Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.

Request concerning Sherif9282

User requesting enforcement: Jiujitsuguy

User against whom enforcement is requested: Sherif9282 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated: Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

The Yom Kippur War is currently under a 1r restriction per recent enforcement action and warning of same is amply noted on the article[40]. Sherif9282 has now violated the 1r restriction by making two reverts in rapid succession. He has been warned by PhilKnight to Self-revert[41] but has failed to comply. I issued him a last chance warning as well[42]

First revert @ 12:49 Nov 15

Second revert @ 16:10 Nov 15

Previous version reverted from [43]

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): Block or topic ban

Notification

[44]

Discussion concerning Sherif9282

Statement by Sherif9282

I was not been given sufficient time to respond to PhilKnight's notification on my talk page. I had been prompted to reinsert my edits after they had been reverted without explanation. I have already self-reverted myself where I have violated 1r, in accordance with PhilKnight's notification. --Sherif9282 (talk) 19:08, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to point out something here. There is a difference between what are presented as my first and second reverts. The first one, you will notice, was not an explicit revert. True, I had reinserted information, but this was as part of a larger edit in an attempt to solve a dispute in the article talk page. I then made an explicit revert. Bearing this in mind, is my first edit to be considered a revert nevertheless? --Sherif9282 (talk) 23:05, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Jiujitsuguy and Cptnono

I had self-reverted when I was in breach of 1rr. I'm not aware that I was thereafter prohibited from ever reinserting the disputed information into the article, or that I had to wait for the AE to finish. I was not in violation of 1rr when I made the fourth edit – 24 hours had passed since any relevant edit I had made to the article, so the space of time it and the other edits were made in is irrelevant. In fact, I don't see how this last edit is related at all here. --Sherif9282 (talk) 10:49, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Sherif9282

Is this the first request for enforcement since the template was added? It does say that blocks can be done without warning. I think a block here would seem pretty lame since he already self-reverted but there is the principle. I am curious to see if enforcement is actually going to be done with the 1/rr rolled out across the topic or if it was all just a bunch of talk. Let me know if this comment would be better at the other discussion page.Cptnono (talk) 03:15, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The self-reversal is a mitigating factor. Nevertheless, the warning was present when he made the edit and he knew what he was doing when he made it. Moreover, this is the first test case of the new ARBPIA guidelines. Others should be made aware that the ruling has teeth. I think a 12hr block is warranted.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:50, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After self-reverting, Sherif could contain himself no longer and again reinserted the same edit[45], the fourth time he's done so in the past two days. Moreover, he didn't even wait for closure of this AE, which is very telling. In light of this, I believe that a block of longer duration is warranted.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 02:54, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

edit of 00:10, 14 November 2010 - reinsert '30,000'
edit of 12:49, 15 November 2010 - reinsert '30,000'
edit of 16:10, 15 November 2010 - reinsert '30,000'
edit of 23:19 16 November 2010 – reinsert '30,000'

4th time in 2 days? 1/rr breached with a dash of borderlining. You added the template didn't you, PhilKnight? Enough is enough.Cptnono (talk) 04:49, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Sherif9282

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.

It's a clear enough violation, however I think we could give him a little while to self-revert. Otherwise, I guess around 24 hours for a first offense. PhilKnight (talk) 18:04, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree with Phil, especially in light of the self-revert. Of course this user can consider themselves more than adequately warned not to repeat this action in the future. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:41, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It should be normal to allow a person to self-revert to avoid a sanction under 1RR. But: (a) You should get a free pass only one time. (b) The person might not be excused if they were individually notified before they violated the 1RR. EdJohnston (talk) 21:18, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Collect

Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.

Request concerning Collect

User requesting enforcement: TFD (talk) 02:59, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Collect (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Discretionary sanctions

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

[46] Edit-warring at Communist terrorism

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

[47] Warning by 2over0 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
[48] Warning by The Four Deuces (talk · contribs)

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): block

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: Arbcom has determined that Communist Terrorism is an article which relates to Eastern Europe, broadly interpreted.[49] Collect participated in that arbitration request for clarification as an univolved editor.[50] I reminded Collect a week ago that this article was included,[51] after he had joined edit wars on Nov. 4th[52] and No. 9th.[53][54] Collect is further knowledgable having applied for enforcement of Digwuren sanctions (along with mark nutley) two months ago.[55]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [56]

Discussion concerning Collect

Statement by Collect

An article was by design deleted and essentially renamed when the discussion to rename failed. My claim is that an RfC was called for, anfd I have at no time exceeded 1RR per week on it, and made sure that the edit was specifically referred to on the talk page. This complaint is totally without any merit. I would like to also add deffs as follows: [57] Andy the Grump deleting the entire article, [58] Snowdad ditto, [59] Ludwigs2 ditto, [60] Petri Krohn ditto, [61] Snowdad ditto, [62] Igny ditto, and so on.

My continued and proper use of the talk page is shown at [63], [64], [65], [66] (which is of interest as it shows coordination between The Forur Deuces and Petri Krohn to undertake this "rename by deletion" plan), [67], [68], [69], and most recently [70] and [71] where I specifically state than an RfC is needed for "rename by deletion" methodology. In short, I have simply defended current WP policies and guidelines, and not gone over 1RR per eek on an article which is not formally under Digwuren in the first place!

I suggest further that RTFD's acts at [72] and [73] where he argues that a term not found in his google searches is improper for any article in the first place, but is used by "political extremists", and so on. Petri is sufficient well-known that his acts surprise no one.

In short: The claim is malicious. 1RR per week has not been exceeded, and the article is not even under Digwuren on any notice at all. Further, that if Digwuren were applied, Petri and TFD would be the ones under the microscope here. Collect (talk) 11:35, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Collect

Does it mean that any user who makes a single revert in any article in the area of discretionary sanctions (and we have many such areas) can be brought to this noticeboard? If so, let's also bring all other edit warriors in the same and other articles here. Biophys (talk) 03:34, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have been watching the page Communist terrorism for a while now. I requested full page protection for a week when two users edit warred against an apparently established consensus to change the page to a disambiguation page after moving a large part of the material elsewhere (to Left-wing terrorism). Collect's revert followed two reverts by Mamalujo (talk · contribs). 2/0 gave Collect a formal warning on October 15th (logged here [74]) about joining in on edit wars on articles connected with EE.[75] Mathsci (talk) 03:41, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Mathsci. It's not the single revert in itself that is the problem, but rather the fact that the single revert contributed to an ongoing edit war [76] of which Collect was clearly aware. The 2over0 notice in particular warned against precisely that kind of contribution to an ongoing edit war. "When you note that an edit war is in progress, please do not join in even if you are in the right." [77]--TS 03:43, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

against an apparently established consensus to change the page to a disambiguation page. Incorrect. There was no consensus for move. In fact quite the opposite is true. Here is the relevant move discussion [78], which was closed "no move" by an outside editor. At that point ~~two editors, TFD and~~ Petri Krohn decided to try a different tactic, of moving article content little by little and then turning the article into a disambig page, in order to explicitly circumvent the results of that RM [79], (added) which he outlined on TFD's talk page. TFD has then appeared to support Petri in this endeavor through his actions on the article [80]. (/added) There's a group of editors who want one thing. There's a group of editors who want another. One group says it's got "consensus" and keeps repeating it, despite the fact that there's obviously no consensus. So it's understandable that outsiders may have gotten confused. Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:39, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

VM, your accusation based on Collect's postingn is totally unfounded and I request that you strike it out. TFD (talk) 06:14, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please explain what you mean by "TFD has then appeared to support Petri in this endeavor through his actions on the article". Your link does not go to any edits I have made. TFD (talk) 06:54, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been fully protected for the second time in a month. Its probably a better idea to discuss any issues concerning the future form and content of the article directly on its talk page instead of here. Mathsci (talk) 07:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As someone involved in this whole sorry saga, can I add that personally I don't give a f*** about arbitration, enforcement etc. All I'd like to see is that those wishing to determine how the issue should be treated in Wikipedia should take part in discussions, rather than engaging in endless arguments over process, over the meaning of 'consensus', and all the other off-topic amateur bureaucratics that goes on. I'm sure we'll never reach an agreement over the substantive issue here, but it would be nice to talk about it sometimes... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:01, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of people were making reverts, you including [81]. It takes two or more to tango.Biophys (talk) 05:11, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Collect

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.

[1] The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.

[2] This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

[a]

[b]

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards